The Faustian Legend
The story is an Americanized update of the legend of Faust, about a man who sells his soul to the devil. In addition to being set in America, the primary difference from the traditional course of the narrative is that the Faust figure’s soul is saved from eternal damnation and not by the grace of god. This tweaking of the outcome is not just aimless experimentation; Benet is suggesting that the American character is one not as corrosively corrupted as the European one that in the original construction of the tale ends with Faust doomed to having to fulfill his eternal bargain.
American Cleverness
Also related to the Faustian tradition is the subversive manner in which the devil is outwitted. In those versions where Faust does get out of his contract, the direct intervention of the authority of God is required. In Benet’s version, all that is required is cleverest American politician. This refashioning of the fundamentals of the European conventions of stories involving selling one’s soul is an examination of Benet’s theme of the special and unique quality of America. The story aims at revealing the cleverness of the American identity which figured out how to get itself out from under the yoke of the authority of the devilish European aristocratic class system.
Hero and Myth
In presenting an actual historical figure as the embodiment of the strengths of America, the story also becomes an examination of the difference between a heroic human and mythic hero. Webster was high regarded and respected during the period in which the story is set, but his image would later be tarnished as a result of supporting the anti-abolitionist Compromise of 1850. While Webster’s defense of his client against the devil takes place before this turn of events, what lay ahead of Webster is an essential component of the story. The very title links Webster with the Devil rather than pitting them against each other. Had the story been titled “The Devil v. Daniel Webster” not only would this have been the case, but it would have been more appropriate considering it is a courtroom drama. By linking the two figures rather than situating them as polar opposites, Benet seems to be making a commentary on a political decision later vilified as evil by the abolitionist movement. At the same time, this admission of Webster future failings also suggest that heroes are human beings whom we should expect to have flaws rather than bloodless mythical figures striving to live up an impossible perfection.
